2/19/14
Legal & Ethical Challenges in
Contemporary School Psychology
Session Overview

Comprehensive Assessment Cases




Natalie N. Politikos, Ph.D., NCSP
Natasha K. Segool, Ph.D., NCSP
Barbara Fischetti, Ed.D. NCSP
NASP 2014
Eligibility Cases

Tony D. Crespi, Ed.D.
D. Tighe Cooke, Ph.D.
Other Health Impaired
Specific Learning Disability
Serious Emotional Disturbance

Autism
Serious Emotional Disturbance

School Climate Case

Parent Involvement
NASP 2014
Forest Grove School District v. T.A.
Case 1: Comprehensive Assessment

Forest Grove School District v. T.A.


US Supreme Court (2009)
US Court of Appeals (9th Circuit, 2008)






AK, AZ, CA, ID, HI, MO, NV, OR, WA
Facts of the case
Evaluation initially conducted was found “legally
inadequate” because it failed to address all areas of
suspected disability, including ADHD
US District Court (, 2005)
Hearing Officer (Oregon, 2004)
Issue: Is a student who never received special education
services eligible to reimbursement of private school
costs under IDEA?

Problems Identified:


Comprehensive Evaluation not completed
District failed to meet the child’s needs
NASP 2014
NASP 2014
Forest Grove School District v. T.A.
Forest Grove School District v. T.A.


Problems Identified


Does IDEA language prohibit student who was not identified
SPED and never received services from being reimbursed for
private school tuition?
Findings

Due Process Hearing Officer Decision: In favor of T.A.

District Court Decision: Reversed prior decision and found in
favor of School District

Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit Decision: Reversed District
Court Decision

Supreme Court Decision: In favor of T.A. and sent back to
District Court

District Court Decision….again!: In favor of School District
Interpretation of intent of the law….not necessarily the words
NASP 2014
NASP 2014
1
2/19/14
Implications

Case 2: Comprehensive Assessment

ADD for Forest Grove
Jarron Draper v. Atlanta Independent School System

US Court of Appeals (11th Circuit, 2008)


US District Court (Atlanta, 2007)
State Administrative Due Process Hearing (2006)

Claim: Denial of FAPE due to an inaccurate educational classification

Alabama, Georgia, Florida
NASP 2014
NASP 2014
Jarron Draper v. Atlanta Independent
School System

Jarron Draper v. Atlanta Independent
School System
July 2003: additional testing completed
Facts:

1998: evaluation (11 months from consent to IEP)




IQ of 63 identified
mild intellectual disability (MID)
placed in self-contained classroom
Aug 2003 – May 2005: 7 IEPs+ mediation

2003: family requests evaluation


IQ of 60 identified with significant discrepancies across scales
School psychologist recommends additional testing
  School maintains MID classification despite family objection
NASP 2014
Jarron Draper v. Atlanta Independent
School System
Hearing officer findings in January 2006:
1.
Failure to provide FAPE and “basic floor of opportunity
required by law” from 2002 – 2005

2002 - 2003: misdiagnosis, stigma, and inappropriate
services

2003 - 2005: ineffective interventions despite evidence of
lack of response
NASP 2014
Placement changed to general education + 10hr of special ed
  reading tutoring despite lack of progress
  J.D. failed several general education courses
Aug 2005: IEE
  SLD - Dyslexia identified with comprehensive evaluation
NASP 2014

IQ of 82 identified
reading/math level of 2nd/3rd grade (in the 10th grade)
Jarron Draper v. Atlanta Independent
School System
District Court (affirmed by US Court of Appeals 11th
Circuit):

1. FAPE denied due to insufficient evaluation of
learning problem





Lacking evaluation of processing speed
Lacking evaluation of phonological processing
Lacking family data on adaptive behavior
Lacking evaluation of receptive / expressive language
Evaluation did not consider all possible disabilities, leaving
district “unaware of JD’s unique needs”
NASP 2014
2
2/19/14
Jarron Draper v. Atlanta Independent
School System
Implications

Assessments must consider all possible disabilities and
not focus on one eligibility classification

Use of full scale IQ is not a comprehensive assessment
of processing ability

Consideration of functioning both in school and out of
school is necessary
2. FAPE denied: “an IEP must be likely to produce progress,
not regression or trivial educational advancement”

IEP was not based on up-to-date information

IEP was to not individualized to produce gains
IEP failed to document progress indicating “no attention whatsoever had been paid
to … accomplishing… objectives, in violation of IDEA”
IEP goals and services were the same across multiple years: “merely copying IEP
from one year to the next when no progress has been made is inappropriate”
NASP 2014
Implications

IEPs must be revised to address unique needs on an
ongoing basis

Standard Instructional Interventions are not sufficient and must
be individualized to unique needs

Based on accurate assessment of current level of performance

Lack of progress requires amendment of the IEP

Short terms and long term progress must be monitored and
documented
NASP 2014
Case 3: Comprehensive Assessment

Rialto Unified School District v. Student


Due Process Hearing (California, 2007)
Issue: Whether District’s initial evaluation of the student
was appropriate.

Evaluation was conducted and school district determined student was
not eligible for SPED services.

Student disagreed with District’s assessment and requested an
independent assessment at public expense.
NASP 2014
Rialto Unified School District v. Student

Facts of the case

Problems identified:
NASP 2014
Rialto Unified School District v. Student


School Psychologist did not report student’s developmental or
educational history

School Psychologist failed to administer additional tests in
student’s primary language or use alternative tests (Nonverbal
IQ)
NASP 2014
Problems Identified:

WJ-III Achievement was not administered in its entirety

Student’s PSI on WISC-IV was 68 but was incorrectly labeled
as “Below Average”

Student’s perception and processing memory should have
been further investigated

No formal Speech and Language evaluation

BASC-2 insufficient- no parent ratings were obtained; only 1
teacher rating
NASP 2014
3
2/19/14
Implications
Rialto Unified School District v. Student

Problems Identified:


No observation conducted

School Psychologist did not contact student’s psychiatrist
even though release was signed

H-T-P was administered but results were not reported

Adaptive skills were not assessed sufficiently

Psychological report did not include educationally relevant
health, developmental, and medical information

District did not thoroughly consider child’s ADHD diagnosis
ADD for Rialto
NASP 2014
Case 4: Eligibility

LI v. Maine School Administrative District No. 55

US Court of Appeals (1st Circuit, 2007)

US District Court (Maine, 2006)
Maine Department of Education Hearing (2006)

LI v. Maine School Administrative District
No. 55

Facts:

History of strong academics

Social problems, depression, anxiety

6th grade: academic decline, cutting, & suicide attempt
ME, MA, NH, RI, Puerto Rico


NASP 2014
Claim: Denial of FAPE due to finding student ineligible for special
education services as a child with a disability
Teachers reported that she showed:
  “serious
lack of awareness of social and emotional state of peers and
adults”
 “unable
to understand or interpret social situations with her peers”
NASP 2014
LI v. Maine School Administrative District
No. 55
Oct 2003: Pupil Evaluation Team Meeting
 Tutoring
NASP 2014
LI v. Maine School Administrative District
No. 55
Feb 2004: Started private school
out of school until eval completed, but it never started
Mar 2004: MDT
Nov 2003: outside neurospychologist eval.
IQ + Asperger’s Disorder
 Limited executive skills, sensory processing, poor pragmatic language
 recommended social skills training and CBT
 LI
did not qualify for special education services
  Superior
 Met
Section 504 eligibility
 close
supervision, S&L, social work & gifted program access, 1-1
tutoring
Jan 2004: SLP eval
 significant
social understanding deficits
direct teaching
 recommended
NASP 2014
NASP 2014
4
2/19/14
LI v. Maine School Administrative District
No. 55

Hearing officer: Were rights denied by failure to find LI eligible
for special education?


LI v. Maine School Administrative District
No. 55

“neither IDEA nor the Maine Special Education Regulations require a school
district to provide special education services to address what is essentially a
mental health issue. Certainly they must accommodate student’s disabilities
and MSAD #55 had done this” …with the 504 plan
District Court (affirmed by US Court of Appeals 1st Circuit):
School District and Magistrate Judge misread the serious
emotional disturbance definition:


Magistrate Judge: Was hearing officer correct?

“Maine regulations define educational performance to include academic
areas and “non-academic areas…”

Evidence suggests that “both prior to and subsequent to LI’s mental
health crisis, her disabilities did not adversely affect her performance”

Duration not of “sufficient duration to trigger eligibility for special
education services”
“a child must possess two independent requirements: (1) that it must
exhibit certain characteristics over a long period of time and to a
marked degree, and (2) that it must adversely affect educational
performance… the regulation does not require that the condition
affect educational performance over a long period of time”

Evidence suggests that the disability adversely affected her

Events from 6th grade can not be isolated from her disability
NASP 2014
NASP 2014
LI v. Maine School Administrative District
No. 55

US Court of Appeals 1st Circuit:

School argued that the district court incorrectly interpreted the
“adverse effect” component.


LI v. Maine School Administrative District
No. 55

US Court of Appeals: Examined the definition of “by reason thereof
needs special education and related services”

Special education: “specially defined instruction… and involves adapting “the
content, methodology, or delivery of instruction”
  “one-on-one tutoring” adapts methodology and delivery of instruction

Appeals court affirmed that the relevant regulations “has no qualifier
such as ‘substantial,’ ‘significant’ or ‘marked’”
School argued that the district court incorrectly interpreted
the “educational performance” component

Appeals court affirmed that educational performance includes
academic and non-academic areas – “IDEA entitles [] services that
target all of [their] special education needs whether they be academic,
physical, social, or emotional”

504 accommodations were special education services

Social skills and pragmatic language instruction are specially designed
instruction

Close supervision is an adaption of typical “instruction”
Related Services includes “other supportive services,” “speech-language
pathology,” social work services…”
  Social worker access is a related service
NASP 2014
NASP 2014
Implications



Special education may be needed even if there is
not academic impairment
Adverse impact on educational performance does
not need to be “significant,” “marked,” or
“ongoing”
504 plans that include special education services
may be challenged



Case 5: Eligibility

A.J. vs. Board of Education (2010) heard by the US District
Court of New York

Child with Asperger Syndrome found ineligible for special
education because he was making academic progress

Claim: Denial of FAPE because parents argued that
“educational performance” is more than just academics
Education in the regular classroom
Education in regular classes with supplementary (related services)
Special education and related services (under IDEA)
NASP 2014
NASP 2014
5
2/19/14
Implications
A.J. vs. Board of Education (2010)






Courts have ruled differently on the meaning of
educational performance

School Psychologists need to consider:
IDEA requires:
1 or more of the delineated conditions
Adversely affects educational performance
By reason thereof need special education and related services
District Court found that while NY regulations do not define
educational performance, “academic performance [ ] appears
to be the principal, if not only, guiding factor.

State regulations defining educational performance and
adverse effect

District court rulings in their state

US Court of Appeal rulings in their Circuit
NASP 2014
NASP 2014
Case 6: Eligibility

RB v. Napa Valley Unified School District



Facts
US Court of Appeals (9th Circuit, 2007)


RB v. Napa Valley Unified School District

School provided a 504 plan from 1st grade on

Ongoing “disturbing incidents”
AK, AZ, CA, ID, HI, MO, NV, OR, WA
US District Court (California, 2005)
California Special Education Hearing Officer (2003)


Claim: Denial of FAPE due to finding student ineligible for special
education services under serious emotional disturbance
Behavior plan implemented that “largely remedied RB’s misconduct”

Parent placed RB in residential treatment and requested
reimbursement


IEP team found RB ineligible for services
Court Review

“child must exhibit [one of five SED] characteristics (1) over a long
period of time, (2) to a marked degree, (3) that adversely affects the
child’s educational performance”
NASP 2014
NASP 2014
Implications
RB v. Napa Valley Unified School District
1. inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal
relationships with peers and teachers

This case provides guidance over the SED
interpretation of:

To a marked degree and over a long period of time
must be both
2. Inappropriate behavior or feelings under normal circumstances


must be to a marked degree over a long period of time
  “habitual history” of “isolated incidents” of misconduct - only “to a
marked degree” during 1 trimester of 5th grade
  problems transitioning a new school and while not taking ADHD
medication were not “under normal circumstances”



Under normal characteristics
new behavior plan
Inconsistent medication
  New school


3. A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression

Marked episodic incidents do not indicate a “long period”
Mild depression did not qualify
Do not
constitute
normal
circumstances
History of depression diagnoses
  must be to a marked degree over a long period of time
  school psychologist’s evaluation found “mild” depression
NASP 2014
NASP 2014
6
2/19/14
Case 7: School Climate

Zeno v. Pine Plans Central School District

US Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit, 2011)

US District Court (New York, 2010)


Zeno v. Pine Plans Central School District

CT, NY,VT
Facts: 2005 – 2008

Racially homogenous school

3 ½ years of harassment re. race and color
Claim: Deliberate Indifference to Harassment




Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits a recipient of federal
funds from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin
Verbal harassment and threats
Physical altercations
Property damage

Parent met with principal 30 – 50 times

2 Orders of Protection

Lawyer requested (1) shadow & (2) racial sensitivity program
NASP 2014
NASP 2014
Zeno v. Pine Plans Central School District
School response
Zeno v. Pine Plans Central School District

2005-8




Individual discipline of students involved
No investigation of harassment


2006





PA announcements about civic values
2 character education assemblies
Cause student to undergo harassment or make them vulnerable
Inadequate response
Court Findings

School “knew that disciplining A’s harassers – through suspensions or
otherwise- did not deter others”

“Dragged its feet before implementing any non-disciplinary remedial action
– a delay of a year or more”
  “little more than half-hearted measures”
program until 2007-2008, attendance optional
2007 – 2008

there is “substantial control”
severe and discriminatory harassment
Actual knowledge
Deliberate indifference

Mediation with parents (but Zeno not notified)
1-day program on bullying and harassment
Hired consultant for diversity awareness
  no

Under Title VI, a school district is liable when
NASP 2014
NASP 2014
Implications

Schools must offer proactive solutions
Case 8: Parent Involvement

Doug C. v Hawaii




Interventions must be:

systematic and address culture

Timely
US Court of Appeals (9th Circuit, 2013)
Investigation of behavior violating Title VI is
required by compliance officer
NASP 2014
AK, AZ, CA, ID, HI, MO, NV, OR, WA

Issue: Parental participation in IEP Meetings

Special education coordinator held an IEP meeting
without the parent, child, or representative from child’s
outplacement. The new IEP changed the child’s
placement
NASP 2014
7
2/19/14
Doug C. v Hawaii


Doug C. v Hawaii
Facts of the case
Problems Identified:



District suggested that services would lapse if the annual
review deadline was not met

District cited scheduling conflicts between parent and other
staff schedules

Holding a second IEP meeting does not absolve district from
failing to include parent in the first meeting
NASP 2014
Guidelines for Supervision-NASP
and APA

Necessary to look at the mission of the law…not
necessarily take it at face value!
A school district is to include the parents in an IEP meeting
“unless they affirmatively refused to attend.
NASP 2014
Implications

Findings:






NASP Standards for Graduate Preparation of School
Psychologists (2010)
NASP Standards for the Credentialing of School
Psychologists (2010)
CDSSP Internship Guidelines (2012 Draft)
NASP Model for Comprehensive and Integrated School
Psychological Services (2010)
NASP Principles for Professional Ethics (2010)
APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct
(2002)
Supervision in School Psychology (Position Statement)(2011)
NASP 2014
NASP Standards for Graduate Preparation of
School Psychologists (2010)



The school psychology program requires supervised practica
and internship experiences.
The school psychology program requires that each intern
receive appropriate and regularly scheduled field-based
supervision, including the following: provision of field
supervision from a school psychologist holding the appropriate
state school psychologist credential, an average of at least two
hours of field based supervision per weekv, preponderance of
field-based supervision on at least a weekly, individual, face-toface basis…
Extensive, intensive, and individualized faculty advisement,
supervision, and mentoring of candidates during all
components of coursework….
NASP Standards for the Credentialing of
School Psychologists (2010)




Close supervision by program faculty and qualified practicum
supervisors.
Applicants for a school psychology credential will have completed
a comprehensive, supervised, and carefully evaluated internship
meeting the requirements of the NASP Standards.
Adequate professional support should be provided to all
credentialed school psychologists. School systems should ensure
that all personnel have levels and types of supervision and/or
mentoring adequate to ensure the provision of effective and
accountable services…
Credentialed school psychologists in their first year of
postgraduate year of employment should participate in districtprovided supervision or mentoring…Recommended for a
minimum average of 1 hour per week…Supervision methods
should match the developmental level of the school psychologist.
8
2/19/14
CDSSP Internship Guidelines (2012
Draft)




The full-time internship includes at least two hours per week
of regularly scheduled individual supervision…
In addition to the individual supervision, the intern spends at
least two additional hours per week in scheduled group or
individual supervision….
The intern has regularly scheduled, supervised, and
documented training activities with other doctoral psychology
interns…
Internship supervision may be provided through synchronous
audio and video format where the supervisor is not in the
same physical facility…Supervision through electronic means
may not account for more than one hour of the minimum
required two weekly hours of individual supervision and two
hours of the minimum required four total weekly hours of
supervision…
Model for Comprehensive and Integrated School
Psychological Services-2010 cont.






Supervisors ensure that practica and internship experiences
occur under conditions of appropriate supervision…
Supervisors provide professional leadership through
participation in school psychology professional organizations
and active involvement in local, state, and federal public policy
development.
Individual school psychologists and school systems develop
professional development plans annually.
The school system provides support to ensure that school
psychologists have sufficient access to continuing professional
development at a level necessary to remain current…
The school system provides supervision of school
psychologists by an appropriately credentialed and
experienced school psychologist.
School psychologists seek and use appropriate types and levels
of supervision…
Model for Comprehensive and Integrated School
Psychological Services-2010






School psychologists use supervision and mentoring for
effective practice.
School psychologists engage in lifelong learning and formulate
personal plans for ongoing professional development.
School psychologists participate in continuing education
activities at a level consistent with maintenance of the NCSP
credential.
The school system ensures that all personnel have levels and
types of supervision and/or mentoring adequate to ensure the
provision of effective and accountable services. Supervision
and mentoring are provided through an ongoing, positive,
systematic, collaborative process between the school
psychologist and a school psychology supervisor.
Supervision methods should match the developmental level of
the school psychologist.
School systems allow time to participate in supervision and
mentoring.
NASP Principles for Professional Ethics
(2010)



Standard II.1.1 School psychologists recognize the strengths
and limitations of their training and experience, engaging only
in practices for which they are qualified. They enlist the
assistance of other specialists in supervisory roles……
Standard II.1.4 School psychologists engage in continuing
professional development…They also understand that
professional skill development beyond that of the novice
practitioner requires well-planned continuing professional
development and professional supervision.
Standard IV.4.2 School psychologists who supervise practicum
students and interns are responsible for all professional
practices of the supervisees. They ensure that practicum
students and interns are adequately supervised….
Supervision in School Psychology
(Position Statement)-(2011)
APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists
and Code of Conduct (2002)
NASP recommends:
  Assigning one or more credentialed, experienced school
psychologists responsibility for administrative and professional
supervision of all staff school psychologists and interns;
  Providing, as needed, opportunities for experienced school
psychologists to gain initial and ongoing training in professional
supervision;
  Ensuring that all school psychologists have access to and
support for receiving professional supervision and mentoring
as appropriate to their levels of training and experience;
  Providing multiple avenues and methods for obtaining
supervision; and
  Ensure the periodic evaluation of supervisors and the program
of supervision.

2.01 Boundaries of Competence
(a) Psychologists provide services, teach and conduct
research with populations and in areas only within
the boundaries of their competence, based on their
education, training, supervised experience,
consultation, study or professional experience…
psychologists have or obtain the training, experience,
consultation or supervision necessary to ensure the
competence of their services, or they make
appropriate referrals.
  2.03 Maintaining Competence
Psychologists undertake ongoing efforts to develop
and maintain their competence.
9
2/19/14
Ethical Issues in Supervision


Research demonstrates that
effective supervisors have…
What skills, abilities, and practices are necessary to
provide effective supervision?

What training and experiences do practicing school
psychologists have that makes them effective supervisors?





Is there a difference between supervision and evaluation?



According to supervisees, ineffective
supervisors demonstrate..










Lack of interest in their supervisees
Lack of availability
Inflexibility and lack of openness to new ideas and new training
Limited clinical knowledge and expertise
Unreliability
Unhelpful and inconsistent feedback
Are punitive or overly critical
Lack empathy
Lack of structure to the supervisory process
Lack of focus on ethical behavior or acting unethically.
(Martino, 2001)
As a New School Psychologist

In the beginning--weekly or bi-weekly supervision.

Other supervision opportunities—


monthly meetings for new school psychologists
monthly department meetings to meet with other school
psychologists in your district.
Competent professional skills and models ethical and
professional behavior.
Commitment to the supervisee’s professional
development
Are emotionally invested in the relationship
A collaborative relationship and are trusting
Are empathetic and respectful
Create a safe environment
A desire to train and an investment in supervision
An understanding of diversity issues with their supervisee
and with the supervisee and clients
Supervision Throughout Your Career

Supervision does not (and should not) end once you get
your first job as a school psychologist.

While you may need less and less supervision as you
progress in your career, there is always a need for this
type of support in our field.
As a New School Psychologist

Learn from others too

Build relationships with your supervisor as well as other
school psychologists in your district.
10
2/19/14
As a New School Psychologist

Professional development opportunities offered in your
school district



Supervision often becomes less frequent and more
focused.
Professional development in areas that you need further
training

Monthly meetings-- but you should feel free to
contact your supervisor as needed.
Join regional, state, and national school psychology
associations

Monthly department meetings
As You Move On in Your Career…

As You Move On in Your Career…
Focus in on a specific case or a specific skill that you are
working on.
As You Move On in Your Career…



Systems issues, such as building-based or district-wide
issues.



Theoretical discussions
Supervision for Senior School
Psychologists
Supervision for Senior School
Psychologists


Seasoned school psychologists need supervision.


Our work is challenging on many levels-- personally,
professionally, and ethically--and that does not change
over time.
Professional development opportunities
Develop a professional network of colleagues with school
psychologists in other towns
Begin to develop your own area(s) of expertise
Stay active in regional, state, and national school
psychology associations


Continue to participate in professional development
opportunities
Share your own area(s) of expertise with others through
professional development in your district
Stay active and take on a leadership role in local, state, and
national school psychology associations
Give back!
11
2/19/14
Mentoring New School Psychologists


Senior school psychologists can serve as mentors for
beginning school psychologists
Help mentees—
Westport School District: A Model for
Supervision throughout Your Career



examine career options,
  educational development options, professional and
personal goals,
  licensure and certification options,
  involvement in professional associations.


Westport School District

Middle Career School Psychologists










Monthly small group supervision
Monthly department meetings with K-12 school psychologists,
counselors (grades 6-8), elementary school social worker
Bi-monthly department meetings with K -12 school
psychologists
Opportunities to participate in as well as provide professional
development to school psychologists in the district and mentor
others
Ethical Situations



QUESTIONS


Senior School Psychologists

In Connecticut, supervisors of school psychologists meet
together for peer supervision
Discuss current professional and legal issues as well as
specific issues in our districts
It never ends…

Bi-weekly individual supervision
Monthly new staff meetings
Monthly department meetings with K-12 school psychologists,
counselors (grades 6-8), elementary school social worker
Bi-monthly department meetings with K -12 school
psychologists
Professional development provided throughout the year
Westport School District
Bi-weekly small group supervision
Monthly department meetings with K-12 school psychologists,
counselors (grades 6-8), elementary school social worker
Bi-monthly department meetings with K -12 school
psychologists
Professional development provided throughout the year
Supervisors Need Supervision
New School Psychologists:



You are asked to supervise an intern and have no training
nor experience with supervision.
Your supervisor directs you to follow a standard battery
of assessment tools for evaluation.
Your supervisor misses multiple sessions and at times
appears distracted when you are there.
You are not getting the experiences you had hoped for at
your internship site.
You are not offered supervision at your first work site.
12
2/19/14
References


Barnett, J.E., Cornish, J.A., Goodyear, R.K., & Lichtenberg,
J.W. (2007). Commentaries on the ethical and effective
practice of clinical supervision. Professional psychology:
Research and practice, 38, 268-272.
Martino, C. (2001, August). Secrets of successful
supervision: Graduate students’ preferences and
experiences with effective and ineffective supervision. In
J.E. Barnett (Chair), Secrets of successful supervision—
Clinical and ethical issues. Symposium conducted at the
109th Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Association, San Francisco, CA.
Contact Us

Natalie N. Politikos, Ph.D., NCSP
Politikos@hartford.edu

Natasha K. Segool, Ph.D., NCSP
segool@hartford.edu

Barbara Fischetti, Ed.D., A.B.P.P.
barbarafischetti@sbcglobal.net
NASP 2014
13